README.md

@@ -178,7 +178,7 @@ Three things to know before touching it:
 - **What is deliberately not checked**, named so the gaps are not mistaken for coverage. *That traffic flows* — no Gateway controller runs in CI and none will, so `Accepted: True` is not obtainable; that claim is simply not made anywhere in this pipeline. *Mutual exclusion with the Ingress* — each chart aborts its own render when `ingress.enabled` and `httpRoute.enabled` are both true, which is where it belongs: this test renders one configuration per chart, and a rule here would have to assume the switch is chart-global, which may not survive the multi-app charts of the sweep. *Cross-namespace and non-Service backends*, and a rule with no `backendRefs` at all (legal for a filter-only rule) — all three are **reported as "not checked", never counted as passing**.
 - **Two anti-vacuum guards**, because the convention ships `httpRoute.enabled: false` and this test would otherwise be green over nothing. `ci/httproute/<chart>.yaml` is a render-only overlay applied **last** whose one job is to put a chart into Gateway mode — and a chart that *has* one and still renders no route **fails**. On top of that the run fails if **no assertion at all** held anywhere. Today `cyberchef` is exercised through its ordinary install-test fixture (which installs in Gateway mode, see below) and `template-chart` through its overlay.
 
-Measured: 27 charts, **4 assertions held in ~3 s**, no cluster (the three charts with a Helm dependency could not be rendered in the authoring environment, which cannot reach the private registry — the same limitation the existing selector-match test has there). The fail path was exercised rather than assumed: a Service renamed in the route, a port the Service does not expose, a port left out entirely, an emptied `parentRefs` with the chart's own guard disabled, an overlay that renders no route, and a run with zero assertions — each produced a `FAIL` naming both sides and a non-zero exit.
+Measured in CI (run 719): **30 charts, 4 assertions held**, whole job 13 s including checkout and the Helm setup, no cluster. The fail path was exercised rather than assumed: a Service renamed in the route, a port the Service does not expose, a port left out entirely, an emptied `parentRefs` with the chart's own guard disabled, an overlay that renders no route, and a run with zero assertions — each produced a `FAIL` naming both sides and a non-zero exit.
 
 ### Install-test (PR pipeline stage 2)